Thursday, January 08, 2009

Hobnobbing with my Fellow Wizards? Off to Learn More About Growing Entrepreneurs!

Good news = got bumped to first again on Delta
Bad news = all that means is I fly too much! LOL

UPDATE: Better news - Read Mike Boss's newest wordsmanship on IBR (

En route to a huge national conference of the top entrepreneurship educators and top scholars. If you want to see what madness I'm officially doing, go, check out the conference & see the program**

Unofficially (the fun part) I'll be seeing old friends, plotting new research projects and a meeting of the top folks on growing entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship-led economic development is key for Idaho and I'm going to get feedback on what I'm involved in here (ESTech, yes, but also including a major white paper that is already selling entrepreneurship-led development to all the right people...who actually know this is imperative.) Further validation would be nice, but new intel would be even better.

[One thing we do know all too painfully is that - just like teaching entrepreneurship - this is NO job for amateurs. In other states, what killed efforts was listening to people who *think* they are experts.. LOL but... ouch...]

Anyway I will attempt to keep people posted- twitter, facebook, etc. If I get ambitious, I'll add comments here as well.

Cheers for the ever-popular SLC airport...
your obedient correspondent.

** yes, I am speaking on [I will try to post my ppts on Slideshare]:
> Neuro-Preneurship (very cool/sexy but need to find better applications)
> How expert entrepreneurs think & why/how that matters for training entrepreneurs, and
> Edu-Preneurship -- a way cool session with me bragging on LSU's entrepreneurial-izing Baton Rouge schools AND them bragging on Idaho's first-of-its-kind online high school entrepreneurship course.
[shamelessly, I'll admit that all three are nominated for awards... it was easy, the head judge is some guy named Blagosevich? LOL]


Blogger Brian said...

Good notes on the meeting, Norris.

I prefer the other emerging terminology--"technology deployment"--because it doesn't differentiate between getting it out and commercializing it, however, even more appropriate would be "IP Deployment" (which I would advance if I were in a position to advance anything. I prefer "IP Deployment" because technology tends to limit the scope of what is being deployed to some sort of device. I know that "technology" doesn't necessarily mean a "thing" or a "gadget" but it is often perceived that way. Whereas IP speaks to concepts, processes, ideas, and soft goods like software, music, films and even publications--as WELL as the devices/products. The end game is that we need to do a better job of managing, protecting, transferring, licensing, marketing and commercializing ALL of our IP.

As for what the Council is focused on right now, it really is the transfer process--just getting the IP off the shelf and in the hands of people who know how to determine if it has any value, and how to extract that value from it, and create streams of revenue that pay for additional production of IP (research). I'd prefer if they called it Tech Deployment or IP Deployment, but since they are focusing on policies that facilitate the transfer process, it's ok that they continue to use the old terminology.


11:56 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home